If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

So murral if nonunion workers aka "leaches" as you call them are caught drinking beer and smoking pot at lunch like union workers and are fired do they get their jobs back through arbitration like union workers? Just wondering.

So murral if nonunion workers aka "leaches" as you call them are caught drinking beer and smoking pot at lunch like union workers and are fired do they get their jobs back through arbitration like union workers? Just wondering.

My current employer and former employer both had a drug/alcohol policy in place that would give the employee a choice between treatment or termination in such an event, both companies are non-union. On that topic the local school district just fired four employees the fifth is on payed leave because of the "Veterans Preference Act".

Whoa ... labor, in general is anything BUT secretive in our political activity and very vocal in support of the candidates that get our endorsements. Our involvement in government goes far beyond monetary contributions, and we are not ashamed of the positions we take.

Why does our support most often go to the Democrats? That's simple ... the Democrat platform is more concerned with the issues of the working class people in general and, as such, is friendlier to the labor movement in particular. Believe it or not, labor wants a strong United States in every way and believes that a strong blue collar economy is the best way to maintain that. Believe it or not, labor wants a strong business climate and realizes that if the "company" is not doing well, neither will the workers. (That's a "duh", despite all the talk about unions trying to put companies out of business. ) We also believe that the greatest way any company stimulates an economy is on Friday afternoon. And we do not believe companies hire people just because they have extra money in the bank nor lay them off if they NEED them to produce product. Those employment decisions are based on NEED for the product and the better the workers are doing, the more product will be sold.

Of course labor doesn't get everything we want from the Democrats. No one gets everything they want in our type of government. But you still put your support with those who will do the best as you see it and lobby for those thing you think are most critical.

While I don't believe unions try to put companies out of business - they push very hard to get preferential treatment. My beef is not with the private sector unions though they can skirt the line at times, it's the public sector unions that have no one across the table from them who has any interest in who will be the eventual payer.

I have outlined in red the part I find humorous - I'm sure you have been properly indoctrinated to say that in your morning prayer - but I heartily disagree. In a perfect world maybe, but ours is not a perfect world.

The Bakers union obviously thought Hostess was doing well . & the Boeing MACHINISTS obviously thought they had the inside track on all future work .

Originally Posted by JS

I'm not so sure if everyone on POTUS is that politically aware or if they just like to argue. It's hard to believe that some of the more prolific posters have a very broad base of information. I don't pretend to be a "know-it-all" and I certainly don't deny anyone else their own opinions. But I do keep in touch with the various "extreme" news sources ... Fox News and MSNBC ... as well as the mainstream and Public Radio. (don't read the internet tabloid rags) I also have quite a diverse network of friends and acquaintances with whom I enjoy good, productive exchanges. Over the past summer and fall, I knocked on around 1000 doors and discussed politics with folks of all persuasions. Only a very small percentage of them express some of the opinions heard here. It is my strong opinion that the majority here limit their sources to the far right only, and back up their opinions with personal anecdotes and regurgitated sound bites, many of which are not based in fact or only partially true.

I DO, however agree with you that "if we sat down face to face most of us could come to many points of agreement long before we came to blows". I also agree with you that "there are exceptions on this forum". Some people have likened RTF to a tailgate session ... well, now and then at a tailgater, there's a clown that is a real PITA. Always attacking, never offering anything constructive and it gets so tiresome you just say, "see ya later" and walk away. I feel a lot of that here. I suppose some feel the same about me.

JS

Other than some who are obviously deficient mentally or experience wise, I believe for the most part POTUS folks have something to say that is meaningful. One just has to be able to decipher the meaning as many are not wordsmiths. My sources are the print media of all types - I subscribe to the New Yorker (a lot of BS but also many great articles), American Spectator, National Review, a host of financial publications: Forbes, Fortune, Kiplingers watch CNBC & sports on the tube & read a lot of books including many from CATO of which we are supporters, along with the Heritage Foundation, the Salvation Army & Hillsdale's Imprimis newsletter. I do watch the weather on the MSM, beyond that they have little to offer, their willingness to go into the tank for the present POTUS after their constant atacks of GWB leaves a rational person in serious doubt of their impartiality.

The execs at Hostess must still think the company is doing well, just have themselves $1.8 million in bonuses, can't imagine how a company with that type of management could go bankrupt.

They are winding the company down. Their knowledge of the value of the company may more than compensate creditors for the salaries received. Surprisingly, even the execs of failed companies are in demand, the bonuses are to secure their services until the wind down is under control. If I'm not mistaken some hourly folks are still drawing a paycheck, should they also be dropped as I'm sure they are being compensated for not going into the labor market .

They are winding the company down. Their knowledge of the value of the company may more than compensate creditors for the salaries received. Surprisingly, even the execs of failed companies are in demand, the bonuses are to secure their services until the wind down is under control. If I'm not mistaken some hourly folks are still drawing a paycheck, should they also be dropped as I'm sure they are being compensated for not going into the labor market .

I missed the part were the hourly employees were being given bonuses in the 100k range.
This is what took place just prior to management telling their employees they needed to take recessions.

The execs at Hostess must still think the company is doing well, just have themselves $1.8 million in bonuses, can't imagine how a company with that type of management could go bankrupt.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Hostess has not taken bankruptsy. They have simply decided to cease operations and sell the assets. No creditors have failed to be paid. If they have taken bankruptsy, then kindly tell me what chapter of bankruptsy they have taken.